CK Raut: The Legal Process Could Last Weeks, Months

English: Image of Kamal Thapa
English: Image of Kamal Thapa (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: Top leaders of Nepali Congress –spoke...
English: Top leaders of Nepali Congress –spokesperson Arjun Narsingh KC, vice presidents Prakash Man Singh and Ram Chandra Paudel and acting president Sushil Koirala—during the Central Working Committee meeting held at its central office in Sanepa, Lalitpur on Wednesday, September 15, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The legal process could last weeks. The hearings in the Special Court could last weeks. The government lawyer will make his case. CK Raut's lawyers will defend. This could go on for weeks. Then the court will decide. Right now it looks like the Special Court will decide against CK.

Then the case will be appealed in the Supreme Court. There it might go on for weeks. Let's hope if things go that far the Supreme Court makes the right decision, otherwise the country will not see a political movement, I see uncontrolled riots across the Madhesh. That would be deeply unfortunate.

During this entire process the government at any point could decide to withdraw its case. Sushil Koirala as the person leading the government is directly responsible. He and he alone is responsible. As the person heading the government, he is responsible for Bamdev Gautam's acts and attitudes. There is no escaping responsibility.

There is a strong case as to why CK Raut's arrest is illegal and he should be released.

  • If the right to self determination were illegal and wrong, CK Raut would not have been invited to speak for it in the national parliament. The fact that he was invited shows the topic is a relevant and contemporary and legitimate topic in national politics that the national parliament is actively considering incorporating in the new constitution. 
  • Talking about a provision in the future constitution is also free speech. Just like talking about turning Nepal a Hindu nation is covered by free speech. Just because Nepal still might be secular in its next constitution does not make it illegal to talk about Nepal as a Hindu nation. 
  • Right to self determination is what CK stands for. That is not sedition. That is federalism. That is free speech. 
  • CK Raut has always espoused non-violence. His heroes are Buddha, Gandhi, and Mandela. 
  • The fact that the police and state harassment has come this far, and the judiciary in the country has become part and parcel of it goes on to show the judiciary in Nepal is not a just judiciary, but a judiciary like the judiciary of the apartheid upholding South Africa that also had judges and courts, but that routinely called freedom fighters criminals and sentenced them to jail. The Home Minister, the cabinet, the Nepal Police, the court in persecuting Raut have proven they are indeed an occupying force of Madhes like Raut claims, and not the democratic representatives of either the Madhesi people or the Nepali people at large. 
  • In persecuting Raut, the state apparatus, the Home Minister, the courts, the police have gone on to prove the point that a villain like Kamal Thapa talking about a Hindu nation is free speech, Prachanda and Baburam talking about a federalism with the right to self determination is free speech, but CK Raut talking about the right to self determination is sedition. 
The political angle of this case is as follows. 
  • It is no longer possible for any political party to not take a public stand on the right to self determination. 
  • If the Congress and the UML do not stand for a federalism with the right to self determination, they should say so. 
  • And if they are saying so, are they saying federalism is still federalism when the right to self determination does not exist?
  • Are they saying that if the right to self determination is inscribed in the new constitution then the people of Madhesh will break away from the country? That the only thing holding them back is that the old constitutions have not had the right to self determination?
  • Are the Congress and the UML saying that if the right to self determination is put in the constitution, and the Madhesh state parliaments decide to put the issue to a referendum, that the people of Madhesh will choose to break away? Is that what they are saying?
  • CK Raut has always maintained the first goal is achieving equality in Nepal. If that is not achieved breaking away to form a separate country is going to be the only option. Are the Congress and the UML saying that they will maintain the current state of inequality, and that they will do all they can to suppress the Madhesis every way they can? If not, why do they fear the Madhesi sentiment? 
  • Does the sovereignty rest with the people? Or does the sovereignty rest with Bamdev Gautam, KP Oli and Sushil Koirala? If the sovereignty rests with the people, why do Bamdev Gautam, KP Oli and Sushil Koirala think the Madhesi people can not have the right to self determination? Do the Madhesi people need permission from Bamdev Gautam, KP Oli and Sushil Koirala before they can have the right to self determination? Or is that their birth right? Just like the right to free speech and all other human rights?
  • Are Bamdev Gautam, KP Oli and Sushil Koirala aware that the right to self determination is part of the universal human rights? Or are they not aware? 
  • The movement to restore human rights in Nepal happened in 2006. Did Bamdev Gautam, KP Oli and Sushil Koirala sit that one out? 

Comments